time. [applause] what about the uninsured? how are they going to get insurance? how will it be more affordable? how will it affect small business? currently, more than 41 million americans mostly low and moderate-income americans have no health insurance. roughly 22 and a half million men and 18 and a half million women. the racial background is something like this, there are a little over 10 million latinos, nearly 7 million african-american, about 13 billion white, and the rest are native american, asian, pacific islanders. included here 1.3 million american veterans not currently enrolled in the va. what about then?

people with incomes up to 138% of the pouf city line. that's $15,860 and $23 ,000 for a family of four will receive support for their coverage through medicaid payments to the state. i'll come back to what arkansas did in a minute. people with incomes between 138% above the poverty like and 400 percent of the poverty line will be eligible for tax credit for individual and family policy on a sliding scale. lower your income, the higher the credit. here is how it works. an uninsured person can willing to a national site, health care.gov. or a state site and shop for the most affordable appropriate policy. the prices which include discounts for the tax credit will be shown, and when a policy is ordered, the tax credit will

actually be automatically sent by the government to the insurer so there's no other hassle for the person buying the insurance. you pay what the computer screen says you will. to get this done, you have to sign up on the state or federal website or at a designated call center between october 1st and march 31st. that's what is about to happen. that's what all the folks have been concerned about. that's what they've been working on. the toll-free national number is 1-800-318-2516. the website is healthcare.gov. you can remember that if you live in arkansas, i'll tell you why. look how arkansas is handling this. currently there's a massive education outreach program. there's a half million people who don't have insurance. about half of them, 250,000 are at or below 138% of the federal

poverty line. they are eligible for arkansas' unique private option plan. this was a bipartisan initiative lead by the governor, supported by the leader of the house and senate, and other republicans to replace traditional medicaid expansion with a plan to use the federal dollars to help eligible to buy private insurance through the arkansas marketplace. ensuring lower income working families will help not only them but anybody who ever worked in a hospital or been on a hospital board knows, it will dramatically reduce the burden of uncompensated care to health care providers. that burden was $3 38 million in arkansas in 2010. today that burden all over america is just normally shifted

as a matter of requirement to people who have insurance, which mean it's kind of a hidden tax. you pay higher insurance rates to pay for the uncompensated care that your health care providers are given to people they can't bear to turn away. nobody wants to turn them away. they ought to be reimbursed in a more direct and fair fashion. now whether or not you agree with the affordable care act, arkansas said they're going pay for it just like citizens of every other state. so deciding whether you support the fact that this private option is set up and will later have to be funded by the legislature, i think, in february you should consider what turning back the money means. keep in mind, some states have done this.

but as a governor said to me, he said it doesn't make anymore sen than turning back federal highway fund. we pay 18.3 cents a gallon in federal gas taxes. how would you feel if somebody gave us -- i don't really like some of the requirements that the federal highway administration put on us when we take the federal money. why don't we not take it and send our money to texas? [laughter] you would think somebody said there were three -- [inaudible] [laughter] it doesn't make any sense for us to do that. and it will aggravate the burden of uncompensated care substantially. by 2015, small small businesses with more than fifty employees also have to provide insurance for their employee or face

paying a penalty. without this private option, a lot of our small businesses most of whom have fewer than 50 employees, but the ones covered without the option, they couldn't afford to provide insurance. and there's a bunch of people with fewer than 50 employees that would like to provide insurance and without the private option there's no way in the world they could do this. so it's a real boom. there's something else, if you have more than fifty employees, you have to pay a penalty in 2015, if you don't provide the insurance. the aggregate cost of the small business penalty is $38 billion. is that right? that's what i thought. i think i remember that. it's like a $38 million small business tax if you don't embrace the private option.

so my view is that arkansas did a good thing a bipartisanship thing, a practical thing. it will help a lot of people and the rest of us ought to get behind it. [applause] now, what about people who are uninsured who won't be covered by the private option? they're incomes are above 138% of the poverty line? well, if they're between 138 and 400%, they can go to the national website, healthcare.gov or the state site, rar healthconnecter.org. there's a phone number for a people who don't have a computer 855-2483. do you shop for the best value poll. the buyers are ebl jibl for tax

credit which will be barred to insurers once they make a decision, like i said. to simplify the selection process individual and family options are organized by categories. bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. it's like the olympics. [laughter] the bronze prices -- policy have the lowest cost and the least coverage. silver is next and gold then platinum. the highest cost with the most coverage. there's also, for young buyers, just over 26 a special catastrophic option. but it's not eligible for the tax credit. most young buyers would be better off picking a bronze option and getting a tax option. it's cheaper than the catastrophic. what about small business in businesses with fifty or more employees aren't required to

cover the employees until 2015, they can do so because they'll have their own marketplace that small business health insurance options. if they already offer insurance, think keep their present plans. there are tax credits for small business based on average wages, which go up to 35% this year, and up to 50% next year. beginning next year, it's only for those who participate in the marketplace. that's something, i think, congress needs to reevaluate as well as the size of the credit. i'll is a -- say a little more about that later. if you put the people in coverage, won't be drive up the cost of health care? so far, given the significant improvement that have already been implemented they i mentioned earlier the answer is no. for the last three years, the average increase in national health care spending, and in

health care spending here in arkansas has hoovered around 4%. that's the smallest increase in 50 years. now some of it was due at the beginning of the three-year period as a hang over from the financial crash in 2008. but not anymore. there are other things going on. medicaid and medicare cost, for example, are going up at less than economic growth. and the governor told me this morning the last time it happened was in 1988. that was in the dark ages when i was governor. so i think this is important to note, there's something going on here. we are learning how to lower the inflation rate for most of the last decade. the medical inflation rate was three times the overall rate of inflation. and that's how we got this huge

gap of spending health care and nobody else is higher than 12. so i think there's something going on here. there's also something else you should know. there is one lifetime limit, which is put in to the law which i like. under the new law, there's a limit on the percentage of income any person can be required to pay for insurance premiums in any given year. it questions from 9.5% for people at 300% of the poverty level or 4% percent of -- 400% of the poverty level down to 2% of those of 100 to 133%. and that is really important. now, can this be continued? can we don't owe the cost down?

the answer to that is, i think, yes, but -- yes but only if we keep working together to cut our necessary costs. a recent corporation study pegged unnecessary medical costs at the whopping $700 billion a year about 30% of total standing. how are we going to do this? well, there are some impressive effort already underway. the accountable care organization, which is cropping up all over the country as a result of coming to grip with health care reform, are basically proving it is possible for lower cost to improve care by basic reimbursement on the quality of health care outcome not on the number of procedures performed. competitive bidding for durable medical equipment, the reduction of medical errors at the

electronic medical records. new strategy to reduce readmission to hospital including in-home care and community clinic. all of these thingses are making a difference. blood stream infection, one of the most commoner roars -- error are down 40% since 2008. increased sterilization requirement which is a high-tech way of saying you have to wash your hands in more places in the hospital -- [laughter] are reducing infections all across america. in the past year hospital readmission under medicare alone are down 70,000 people. also in the past year, finally the national government began to publish comparative costs and outcome data. pennsylvania's been doing this for years. i read the report every year. here is what it shows in

pennsylvania. there is no relationship between what something costs and the outcome. that the biggest and closest correlation e and let's take the surgery procedure. the closest correlation between good outcome and a given procedure is not the price of it, but how many of those procedures are performed at the given place every year. and we now have years and years of data in pennsylvania to support this. pennsylvania also has an interesting certified but long standing accountable care organization which has hundreds and hundreds of doctors which started years ago getting all of the doctors to agree whatever their ages to adhere to a set of best medical practices. contained in a book that

upgraded weekly by the group. best medical practices for any kind of procedure, and essentially it operates on the premise that medicine is an art and science. let do the science and move to the art. you are operating on somebody who turns tout have a bad bleeding problem, you center to deal with that. but first be like a pilot with an airplane follow the checklist. if for any reason, anybody under their care is in a hospital and released has to rush to -- return want to hospital within three or six month. i can't remember which, i'm sorry. they pay 100% of the cost. and your premium, copay, and deductible cannot be raised. guess what? the medical error dropped nearly zero and the profit increased as a result. they didn't make less money. they made more money because

they had a fixed income from enrollment in the program. getting all the payers in the health care system about 95% employers, insurance companies, medicaid soon the governor said in order to get medicare. to pay based on what you call episodes a flat rate which basically works this way. you do away with fee-for-service, and you reward performance so if you get good results and you get them in a hurry you make more money. if you get bad results slowly, you will probably lose money. the the incentive are designed to lower the cost while improving the quality.

the reason it can be done, i believe, is because this is like what you did with the public health option. you have everybody in the room with -- you get all the employer and the insurers, the medicare and medicaid folk you have a pretty broad spectrum economically, socially, and politically. you figure out how to make it work. i'm excited about this. i think the state deserves a lot of credit for doing this as well. that's where you are. you can say, come on, bill. there has to be something wrong. anything that sounds too good to be true usually is. this is pretty good. what are the known and potential problems? what could still go wrong but hasn't yet but could? like any law, this that's is this complex there are some problems i think will have to be

addressed. first, the thing that bothers me the most, which i hope was a drafting error, workers with modest incomes like, say, $40,000 who work for a company that insures only them and not their family members. still required by the law to provide for their families. if their families aren't insure they'd have to pay a penalty. the problem is under the law because they have insurance at work, they can't send their family to the arkansas exchange and get the tax credit. it's obviously not fair. and if bad policy. it's not clear to me based on what i can determine that anybody intended if this.

if it's the only unintended consequence of the law they did a pretty good job. it's got to be fixed. it's just not fair. so i think congress should fix it. second drink, small small businesses fewer than 50 people are required to provide insurance. a lot of them would like; however, many of them have access to a tax credit a different one and many don't. it may surprise you, for example, if you have fewer than 50 employees you can claim a tax credit for up to 25 of them. if you have 35 you can claim a tax credit for 25 of them. if you have 43, you can claim a tax credit for 25 of them. this is obviously just a budget tear decision based on what the

estimated insurance premium would be and what the cost of the subsidizes would be. but i believe that the current tax credit is too low. it sound good a 50% tax credit sounds like a lot. if you read the fine print and how it's calculated there are relatively few companies eligible for the 50 percent tax credit. then it begins the average wage goes up, the tax credit diminishes from 50% to something lower. and what i think that the congress ought to do and it ought to be bipartisan support for this is to come in and basically make the tax credit available to more firm more employees under the 50 employee limit. and actually make it more generous to more firms so more will show up. there's more individual looking to sign up for the individual

market than small businesses signing up for the small business market. because the tax credit system doesn't work very well for small businesses. it needs to be improved. thirdly, this is a third big problem taxable property whopper . this has to be fixed at the state level where it isn't being fixed. the supreme court ruling on the affordable care act upheld the law but said the states have a right to refuse to participate in taking the medicare, medicaid expansion money and refuse to set up their own health exchange. the law said, which is passed obviously before the supreme court reviewed it that the federal government would run an exchange if the states didn't. but they never dreamed that anybody turn out the medicaid.

so amazingly, about half the states have comprising more than half of the eligible people. big states like texas, ohio, and pennsylvania so far are rejecting the money. michigan voting a couple of day ago to take it. they have a republican governor and republican legislature. here is what is going happen. in those states, work people with incomes between 138 and 400% will be able to buy insurance on the exchange with subsidizes. whether the exchange is of the federal government. but lower income working families with incomes at 138% or less some of them even blow 100% of the poverty line are el eligible for nothing. so you get the worst of all i'm

sorry but you're working 40 hours a week but you're too poor to get help. not too rich. too poor. and this is a serious problem. there's going to be a jump in uncompensated care, especially in urban medical centers like houston, miami, cleveland, and pit burg. they have amazing medical center and they treat everybody -- they do wonderful work, and they're going get hurt. their taxpayer's money will be spent in other states. the governor gas tax analogy reminds us of the uncompensated care will arise. that's why michigan, new mexico, arizona, iowa, new jersey, north dakota all with republican governors, and most of the republican legislatures are taking the medicaid expansion.

because of the supreme court decision, this is a problem that only the state can fix. so they have to think about this. now we have also heard a lot of other things about potential problem in the law. let go through some of them. a lot of folks are worried that not enough healthy young people will sign up who are now uninsured. why does that matter? because if you let the relatively small number of people with severe preexisting conditions buy insurance at the same price as everybody else, that will run everybody's insurance policy up unless you get a lot of healthy young people to come in and at least buy the bronze policy. the limited policy which will level out the risk for the insurance companies. so that's a legitimized --

even though i'm, you know, what it's like to be 27 and convinced i was going to live forever and never gate hangnail much less have a serious accident. but there's a lot of worry about this. but a recent study by at least suggests that this may not happen first, large number of young people age 26 and younger have already enrolled in their parent's plans. interestingly enough, if i were you guys i would promote this. that these are republicans are first personal responsibility. there are more republicans enrolled in their parent's plans than young democrats. [laughter] second, the asthawmtion young people don't buy insurance because they think they don't need isn't backed up by the facts.

most people surveyed said they wanted insurance but they didn't earn enough to afford it. the tax credits will allow a lot of them to afford at least one of the bronze plans. eni think if young people can afford it cover it, they should buy it. and droibt a well-funded system with lower rates if for no other reason they will not always be young. it's the right and smart thing to do. second, a lot of people are worried about the computer program. you have to multistate and federal computer up and running for the october 1st and through the end of march. i think it's remarkable what the state and federal officials have done to get the computer systems up and running. now there may be glitches, but so far there's no evidence to suggest that they will be able to fix the quickly. i really have been impressed by what i have seen what is

happening both here and around the country. third, there are people who thought because the small business requirement or the requirement to cover all employees who work 30 hours a week or more there would be a lot of shifting of employees from full-time to part-time. to avoid the 30 hour requirement for coverage. so far it hasn't happened. since 2010, since 2010 when the law passed, 90% of the employment gains in america have been in full-time jobs. and massachusetts where the law governor romney signed works a lot like the affordable care act will work, there was no appreciable impact on job growth

and percentage of part-time workers or employers dropping coverage. so so far the direst reprixes -- predictions for the adverse that materialized. i don't believe they will. the law already has done a lot of good. it's about to make 95 percent of us insured with access to affordable care. it has built-in incentive to lower cost and improve quality including lots of opportunities for states to innovate and arkansas is exhibit a. you should all be very proud with what your representatives and your governor have done. we have to do this. i would say, again, the studies show that we are number one by a country in the percentage our income we vote -- devote to health care costs. we get it. this is a --

a country that pioneered innovation. you cannot make me believe we have to tolerate it from the end to the term. i think we will become competitive and healthier if we do it right. look what the study said about arkansas. it estimated by 2016 arkansas will have 400,000 more people with insurance. 2300 fewer deaths a year. just in our state. a $5 50 million increase in gdp spurred by $4 30 million in net increase in federal investment leading to 6200 new jobs. for so long so many have worked to remove barriers. faith-based organizations,

doctor's groups, nurses groups. unions and businesses working together. patient advocates they have all worked to ensure that people had good solid coverage. and a lot of people have a lot at stake here. here is the bot tomb -- bottom like to me. it seems that the benefit of reform can't be fully realized and the problems certainly can't be solved. unless both the supporters and the opponent of the original legislation work together to implement it and address the issues that arise whenever you change the system this complex. there are always drafting errors, unintended consequences,

unanticipated issues. we're going do better working together and learning together than we will trying over and over again to repeal the law are rooting for reform to fail. and refusing to fix relatively simple matters. i hope the congress will follow the lead of the example set by many, many republicans and democrats at the state level, and do the best we can as well be up front and open about the problems that develop and deal with them. we all get paid to show up for work. we need automatic -- all hands on deck here. the health of our poem, the security instability of our

families, and the strength of our economy are all riding on getting health care reform right, and doing it well. that means we have to do it together. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause] we're bringing you encore presentation of q & a this week

on c-span2. pebs of congress continue to meet authorizing whether or -- the senate is expected to debate and vote on a resolution next week. there are a number of proposals being addressed in the house including one from congressman chris smith. e plans to vote gens authorizing military strike in syria. instead representative smith will introduce legislation to create a syrian war crime tribunal as an alternative. on c-span tonight we'll get your thoughts how your member of congress should vote.

representative sheila jackson lee from texas needs more information, she says. >> sheila jackson lee, i represent the 18th congressional direct. i have served since 9/11 on the homeland security committee. i think the most important impression i am getting having been in a series of con friday calls briefings a meeting with syrian americans that i met with on my constituency last evening who painted a picture of humanitarian disaster. but also in to a call of about 300 constituents as i was leaving houston today to come to this briefing. i think the american people should know that republicans and democrats are taking this enormously seriously.

it is pain stakingly serious. and i want to thank the president and the administration for doing something that did not occur in the determination to go war in iraq. i read the authorization for afghanistan, which i did both for and it has the word self-defense. that was not the case in iraq. what makes this particularly difficult is that this is about international norms and standards but it is about the devastating disaster, the humanitarian disaster that chemical weapons generate. it makes it a very tough call for members and also for the american people understand because there are no words in there such as self-defense. i remain anonymously open and will be in briefings whenever they occur as we come back to washington. i think it is important that it contains a dialogue that has

never existed or not existed in some of the other recent military operations that we've had. my decision will be based upon upon the not the issue of credibility, i wish we not hold that standard up. i think america has shown i.t. to be credible. our president has shown himself to be credible. i'm saddened that our memory fails us in this is the national security captureed bin laden. i think the important point is for the american people is that what is their stake in this? what is the danger to them? if this is not done? i plan to be striebl my constituents throughout the next couple of days to answer or subject myself to those questions. i would get part of what is

represented is that chemical weapons are so heinous so fluid if i might use that terminology in quote. it's important in the national security interest in the united states to take it seriously. [inaudible] let me just say that we have had a diverse community in houston in the 18th congressional district. what they have done very passionately is share their human stories of their families, loved ones or persons they have known whose bodies have been returned, broken, who disappeared, kidnapped. and the humanitarian cost to women and children over a period of two years. i would say that you would expect they would be advocate for action, but i indicated to

them and i'll say it again they plan to listen throughout the process it will be a vote of conscious. >> do you think there's any value in president obama addressing the nation if a prime time address to sell to the american people? >> i think in my earlier point was to the american people understand the gravity of chemical weapons? i think more than anyone else commander in chief of a nation would be an excellent person to articulate his mission, passion and what is the impact and danger of chemical weapons? for those who live in this nation, it might be difficult un. i picture it not only women and children in syria, i picture men and women in the united states military being on the front line and ultimately people in the united or citizens of the united states as they travel around the world. >> have much of a chance about strong democratic support. a piece would be the c berk c. do you see the cbc giving

support of the president? there was sort of directive not say much until briefing. do you think that's a good thing? >> we're going to be all in discussion. i don't want to speculate on behalf of the congressional black caucus, patriots, americans, let me say this. i think the key to this is the understanding of the depth of grotesqueness that chemical weapons can be. whether or not that brings you to the strike that is to deter and degrade. that is a very finite term that has to be understood. most people understand eliminate, terminate. this is why it's not hedging. members are not hedging their bet. what is happening we will stay in constant briefing as long as it takes up until the time of the vote. i can't what will sphek late in the house. ly say it's probably going a

anonymous i don't want to speculate any vote. what i want to do is continue receiving information. we will do that on behalf of miff constituents until the time is appropriate to vote before the house. i'm convinced i have to continue to receive information, engage my constituents. i think that's the safest of many of the members including those we saw in the various hearings but i think it is a question of i'm not prepared to suggest there's no basis whatsoever. does it leave you with any doubt what the administration is saying true?

i don't want to speculate 05en any evidence in securing in a classified setting. what i want to say to you what is being put in the public sphere is the issue of chemical weapons. that has to be the question as we go forward. the depth of daiftion that could perpetrate. do you sense it's moving in one direction or the other? >> no, i don't. what i sense is that members are going and going with an open mind along with the senate. they are actively engaged. it's so different from the sphere of sometime of afghanistan obviously was a heinous act. i think people are very pleased to see the difference. i think the president is owed a moment of appreciation. [inaudible] u.s. should be doing what it can -- [inaudible] is that something you're comfortable with?

that is -- i've read all imaginations of the senate resolution, and i'm going continue to explore with the appropriate officials as to whether or not we are assure there had will be no boots on the ground of u.s. troops. that i can't answer right now. if any of that language points to any of that. we want to have it clarified. thank you very much. thank you. displncht again, how would you like to see your member of congress vote on the resolution authorizing military force in syria? we'll take your phone calls, facebook comments, and between tweets tonight at 7:00 eastern on c-span.

he is on the military is planning for potential strike on syria. and he said none of the plans include u.s. bootses on the ground. >> good afternoon. just after labor day. school is back in session, and good to see you, class. i don't have any announcements to make today. we'll start with your questions. >> george, i think a couple of things from yesterday's hearing for you can maybe clarify that or add a little bit more information to them. this was a mention of ten countries participating in the military action. can you define what participate means? the normal decision would be they actually would do something, and what those ten countries are? thin secondly, there was also some discussion about the percentage of the opposition that would be considered bad guys, you know, somewhere

fifteen to 25%. does the defense department agree with those estimates? the answer to the second part of your question, yes. i think the -- opposition is what we consider evidence we don't want to deal with on a regular basis. the vast majority of the opposition is composed of syrian opposition fighters and officials that we can certainly deal with. en the first question, i don't have a precise list to offer, but we believe we have been joined by other countries in this effort. international participation is not necessarily prerick sit for our anxious. obviously we prefer there be international effort. in this case should we be involved in military operation in syria? >> are there countries who have agreed to participate militarily as in provide military -- >> i don't have the precise list

for you today. i believe that some countries will provide some support if we take military action and not prepared to provide precise list at this stage. we don't consult and we're ratified by the number of countries around the world who have condemned the actions. the support has been that and we will don't quality our partners on their continuing efforts to underscore for the world that they should not use chemical weapons. it's a blatant violation of the international war banning chemical weapons use, and when it comes to military action we'll see that the appropriate time who -- the international participation does not need to be vast in order for us to succeed. >> yesterday secretary kerry said they agreed to pay for this

military operation. is that true, first? and second, has the pentagon begin to ask making plays and train the opposition fighters? no decisions have been made on the point. the current plans that i'm aware of. and on the first point i refer you to the state department. >> good idea. what came out of the draft resolution was one of the policies now is to change the momentum on the battle field. this was not something that has been discussed in the original sort of military plan in the policy coming out of the white house. how does that alter your military plan for striking syria changing the momentum on the battle field? would you -- to do that would you have to increase the scale of attacks?

we're focus order what the presidents and others have said about the military operation if it takes place would try to achieve. that is a clear objective of stopping the assad regime from using chemical weapon. deterring and degrading the regime to murder innocent syrian men, winl -- women and children. we are focused on that. let me repeat what the objective is that potential operation should it take place. deter and degrade a use of chemical weapon by the syrian regime. it would be a limited scope, it would be a limited duration, there would be no boots on the ground. that's a cope what we're looking at now. what we are continuing with more broadly in the context of syria are multiple tracks. as you know the state department, in particular, has been heavily involved in diplomatic effort with the syrian opposition to try to move

forward an ultimate political solution in syria by the syrians. that's what we want at the end of the day. that's what the syrians want. so i think we need to look tat in a nuanced way. the him tear option on the table for chemical weapons. and then the political track we are continuing with. is a matter of policy, is that something that they agree with? which is the idea of being involved in changing mom tom? i think that every senior u.s. official broadly speaking through all of our track want to see momentum on the side of the opposition. momentum against the assad regime. that stands to reason. they said the operational costs is tens of millions of dollar. could you give us a sense how the pentagon hope it would be

paid through? it would be through continued resolution, [inaudible] can you detail it for us? >> i won't be able to offer detail on cost at this time. we don't know precisely with the military operation would look like. i can't give a precise cost 0 estimate. what i will say is we have said it's in the national security interest of the united states. if the operation goes forward and asked by the president to conduct a military operation we'll duct. when something is that important we'll find a way to pay for it. [inaudible] in term of basing and -- that would imply -- [inaudible] we have conducted planning on the issues. chemical used in syria with ally for some time to include turkey,

israel, jour -- jordanian and other note prepared to discuss the specifics what they may or may not do in the context of perspective military operations against the aside regime. we don't consult closely with them. theirs a sect would be part of the planning? >> i'm not going speculate what may or may not be. yesterday secretary kerry suggested that the extremist may make up as little as 15% of the overall opposition. do you see the 15% interspersed around the country, among different groups? or segregated? to in the pocket of the country. i'm not sure they're located in one particular location or concentrated in one particular location inside syria. i think there are different extremists groups in different part of the country.

i think we have pretty good understanding where they generally operate. and we're certainly not blind to the reality there are extremists in syria. they will reject the extremism and find a natd gets them to back to a civil society more inclusive, and -- [inaudible] >> one 69 members of the house foreign relations committee, and talking to kerry about the percentage of extremists there in syria said he was repeatedly briefedly intelligence. got intelligence briefings that said that number was more than 50% when he was briefed. can you explain in disparity?

>> i would defer you to the intelligence community for a precise figure they estimate. but we don't believe that the extremist elements make up the majority of the syrian opposition. >> are you differentiating between the forces fighting a-- assad and the opposition. are you just not including al qaeda as part of the opposition? is that the dynamic here? >> g on to the intelligence community and i would leave it at what secretary kerry described yesterday. in july in response to a request from senator levin on the senate armed services committee. general dempsey expressed concern that any potential strikes could raise the possibility that extremists would have access to the chemical weapons that are now being protected by the syrian military. if the u.s. military intends to

take out much of the chemical weapons infrastructure, how do you guarantee that will be enough syrian military left to guard those chemical stockpiles? i think it's important note that the letter was sent perform the horrific attack we saw in late august. and it was different addressing different questions largely. for potential missions president request to perform. do you any assurance they could be protected? they're carrying out the air strike from 600,000 miles away? we obviously have security

weapon stockpile needs to be maintain and taken in to account in our lane planning to use a phrase that the general used. we can never take the risk down to zero. it's we're aware of all the dangers. but that should not from planning. that's with we've done in effect. [inaudible] to -- [inaudible]

we can talk and talk and chew gum at the same time. we are continuing to engage in that process. we are not taking our eye off the ball in afghanistan. we can conduct the syria mission if called phone. we can fight the war in offings -- afghanistan. one more question. [inaudible] [laughter] pakistan and media that -- [inaudible] u.s. country which -- [inaudible] headed toward afghanistan. i do not have information. we'll be happy to follow up. thank you. a couple of questions on north korea. >> okay. [inaudible]

stockpile of chemical weapon and the assessment. [inaudible] we have good information to suggest that the north korea have stockpile of chemical weapon. a issue that arose last week when secretary hagel met with the south korea counter part. if we sit -- and allow the syrian regime to perpetrate atrocity like recently, then what signal does it send to countries like north korea? if the syrians are allowed to get away. perhaps it's the signals that others might be able to get away too. it's a norm worth defending and note just north korea but what about the iranian and hezbollah

and other actors in the international commune any it's very serious business. it is very important not just for the united but other countrieses to step up and say it's a international norm it worth defending. >> second part, i said -- [inaudible] the media reported that north korea [inaudible] >> well, i think there's been sharing between north korea and syria in a number of things. as you recall, the nuclear reactor was the support of the north korea.

an exchange of information and the syria regime for some time. and i can't count the possibility that they discussed -- information on chemical weapon but it will have details today. we understand there won't be boots on the ground. assad's forces that -- they clarified that point on several occasions. both -- yesterday before the house committee. ..

>> would you acknowledge this if this operation goes ahead could cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars if not more? >> i will not get into the numbers because i do not want to suggest we have a precise picture of the military operation that would be conducted if it was. i'm not going to get into the cost today. that's not appropriate. it'll get sorted out at the appropriate time, and we will

afford it, and if this moves forward, again, because it's in the national security interest of the united states, and when americans make the determination, then we'll go ahead. >> can you afford a 60 to 90-day operation given the constraints you face under sequestering? >> well, you're putting a time frame on an operation that they put a time frame -- a limit, if you will, in the draft of resolutions or resolution of the committee yesterday, and i'm not going to speculate on cost at this stage. i don't think it's fruitful. what we have to focus on is the objective that we're looking at, and that is to detour and

degrade weapons use. that's the key point here. when it comes to sequestering and budget uncertainty, when the country decides to come together and take military action for a just cause, it's rooted in legitimacy of a strong international norm, we'll find a way to fund it. >> given the president's characterization of a missile strike, limited in scope and duration, the limitations put on and the resolution from the hill probably don't apply in this case, but is there any concern here at dod, or within the u.s. military that there's a dangerous precedent being set here in that congress has put limits on the use of military force even though they are ordered into an operation? >> well, we have not been

ordered into an operation yet, and we believe that consulting with the congress is the prompt thing to do in this case. the president has made the right decision. the secretary believes to consult with congress, and if we speak with one voice as an american government, the president, and congress, that's sending a stronger message to the assad regime and rest of the world on the norm of international prohibitions of chemical weapons. >> that was a great answer to another question. >> i think it was. [laughter] >> the question, is there concern about the precedent that is set here to have congress pull the strings and make really kind of minor, impose minor restrictions on a military operation? >> well, i think we're continuing to work with congress on this. i think that it's hard to suggest that there's going to be

precedent that when this is a rather unprecedented simption. -- situation. i think it is. i don't think we see chemical weapons used that often, and i don't think we can draw any lasting conclusions about what this may or may not pore tend for future deliberationses on the use of force with this president. i don't think it's necessarily going to set precedence. >> i don't understand how the mission will degrade chemical weapons stockpile or detour the assad regime from using them if change and boots on the ground are not involved, if the target sets do not include chemical weapons, storage facilities because concerns, how do do you assure people the mission will detour him from using weapons again or from sharing them with

hezbollah? >> well, if i were in the syria military right now facing the prospects of u.s. military action with support from international partners, i think it would make me think twice of using chemical weapons again, and i think the risk of an action, as you heard kerry and hagel say on several occasions over the last few days, are high. the risk of inaction in our view, seeds risk of action in this case. what message does it send if we don't take action against chemical weapons use? this is the discussion we have to be having as a country, and we can do this. we can do it in a right way. we can take action that is effective, that gets at syria intentions and capabilities and

they need to be detoured. >> one of the things said in the testimony is obama is not asking americans to go to war. you're aware of the weary war sense, so how is this not war? >> well, i'll let secretary kerry speak for himself, obviously, but what i think testifies getting at, if i may be so bold, and i may get letters later, but i think he said this is not going to be a long, protracted drawn out conflict, again, to iraq or afghanistan. we're talking about a limited mission, limited in scope, limited in duration, and no boots on the ground. i think that's the point he was trying to make. >> sort of thing you guys are looking at as you -- in the rebalance these sort of limited, precise, targeted strikes? i mean, is this something that you see going forward?

>> well, i don't have to not consider this military operation again. i hope others don't use chemical weapons, and i'm not going to speculate about what we may or may not do, but there's been limitedded conducted operation in the past, and if necessary, we'll do so in the future. >> alook with that, does the pentagon consider this an act of war? >> i'm not going to get into those kinds of labels here today. this would be an action that would be consistent with american law and would absolutely purport with legitimacy of international norms against the use of chemical weapons. >> not only watching syria, but sequesteration probably going in effect on october 1 #st. what's the current planning in reductions of force? august 1 #st, planning execution

plan laid out, serving as, quote, are not contemplating furloughs. can you give a state of play on that? >> we have not moved the ball forward on any announcements about what may take place in fy14. we're in fy sp, the waiting days of the very turbulent budget year, and the secretary's guidance is the same, that we may, in fact, if we face sequestering in 2014, we look at risks and other measures to meet the budgetary requirements. >> memos yesterday had pulsing the career work force to the extent of interests and voluntary early retirements to get the ball rolling, so to speak? >> well, we have issued these kinds of notices before, and we offered them up, and, absolutely, these kinds of offers are made during the periods of budgetary downsizing,

and some of the employees may, in fact, take advantage of them. >> i just want syria clarification too. >> sure. >> stockpiles of chemical weapons are not in the targets, but the infrastructure and capability to employee those weapons that are the target set. >> confirming what is and what is not in the target set because i'm not going to define specific targets. i will make note of what jennifer pointed to earlier, taking intoing the in the planning the fact of environmental impacts if there were large dispersions of chemical weapon stock pies. >> you said there's no decision yet on possibility of assuming a role in the training of syria opposition members from jordan, but has planning begun for that possibility, options? >> i'm -- at this point, given

the current situation, i'm not going to get into the specifics of the planning, but we plan for just about everything. as i said before, we continue to plan and consult with the partners in the region. >> so can you tell us when secretary hagel learned from the president he was going to go to congress for authorization, and had secretary hagel advised him for authorization vote or a broader congressional debate? >> not getting into private conversations, but there was a discussion friday night. >> can you give a way to characterize the degree of which time is of the essence? clearly, the regime had time to respond to the threat of whatever strikes may come. i mean, how important is it that whatever might happen happens relatively soon? >> we are the strongest military

power in the world, strongest, most adaptable, access to information to enable us to take effective action at the appropriate time if called upon. no one in the syria regime should take sal las from the delivery process we are undertaking right now with the united states congress. we have the time to adjust, if necessary, given conditions on the ground, given what the syria regime may or may not do in terms of movement, equipment, and so forth, we have time to adjust, so the syria regime does not get a strategic advantage from the time we -- if called upon, will carry out a military mission effectively, and we will meet our objective of detouring and degrading their chemical weapons use. >> american capabilities negate whatever they could do in

response during this period of time? >> we have very strong capabilities to exercise military options if requested by the president, and if we are requested to exercise options, we'll carry them out, and whatever the syria regime does in between now and then, we will probably have a good beat on. >> george, the options you guys are preparing include an emergency scenario where you might have to put troops on the ground, and if not, how is that the case even as you said a moment ago, plans for about everything? >> again, i'm not going to get into the specific planning. there are no plans right now. we are not contemplating boots on the ground in syria. i will say to this section of the audience that there are no plans for boots on the ground when it comes to military operations that we're contemplating right now. there are no boots on the ground

plans right now, okay? >> george, what can you say about reports that the u.s. military may take over the training, arming, equipping the opposition forces in some place like jordan? is that -- is that at least under contemplation, and if it is, how far along is that? >> again, i'm not going to get into specific planning efforts. we're consulting with partners in the region, but i'm not going further than that. colin? >> discussions about bolster l the abilities of u.s. troops to operate in chemical environments? >> they do receive training, but it comes and goes. we got people in jordan. >> no, we have a lot of expertise on chemical weapons and how to manage them and drink them, but, again, i don't want anyone to get the impression that we're beginning to have boots on the ground or chemical

weapons expertise on the ground in syria, at least u.s. military personnel. we have some of the best expertise in the world, probably thee best, and we may use it in some way down the road, but we're not contemplating, again, boots on the ground for this mission. yes? >> james rosen, new pentagon reporter. >> welcome. >> first briefing p. >> all right. >> i'll try not to ask more than one question. >> this could be the last, who knows. >> in recent days, they said the job is to provide options to the president. >> yes. >> they portrayed that like a one-way street. in that advisory role, is part of their role to also, if as the president narrows down his choices and continues to consult with them, is part of the role to also tell him, using their expertise, that, perhaps, an

option to zero in on is risky, a bad idea? is it more than just a 100% one-way street? >> i think that, well, i'm not sure it's 100% one-way street or where that perception comes from. >> [inaudible] >> okay, well, first, welcome again to the pentagon, working alongside brilliant people in the press. >> i hope to join their ranks. 12k34 >> okay. it's a two-way street. it's the chairman's role to provide independent military advice to include risks, and that's the conversation that the president and the chairman and the secretary has so it's not just a one-way street. i think it is our role in the department of defense to determine what risks there may or may not be when it comes to military action and to give the president a full picture of what those results are. >> because congress is doing this resolution and that just

another stapp at changing momentum discussion, is it the pentagon's assessment that you can change the momentum on the battlefield in syria by simply doing what has been planned all along, this detouring, and take out the capabilities of chemical weapons, or does changing momentum require something additional, ie, maybe training, equipping. can you do the change of momentum with what has been planned initially? >> in terms of chemical operations to take? >> yes. >> look, it's important to step back, and momentum is defined in various ways. there's momentum on the battlefield, political moe mome, and what we're focused on right now is the possible use of military action to detour and

degrade. we need a broad based view, and we think that momentum on the political side is achievable. it's not goinged to easy. state department is working hard, working with the opposition to try to build a more cohesive opposition that leads to a political transition that does not involve assad. i think we need to break this into pieces to some extent and look at it in a nuanced way. >> but the congress said its view of the resolution is not just the target of the chemical weapons, but changing momentum on the battlefield, and if that language stays in place, my question is can you do that with an operation meant to -- does

that change, also, me men tum on the battlefield? >> we don't have a final resolution language yet, so we'll see, and we'll leave decisions, ultimately, up to the president of the united states. in son cullation with congress. one or two more. >> >> yesterday, secretary kerry mentioned the syria free army to come to washington, is this pending -- coordinating with him or the syria army -- >> i'm not aware of direct contact, but i'll follow up if i'm wrong. >> there's been talk of reducing senior military brass, generals, and whatnot. is there a goal for reducing senior civiles at all in the department? >> i have not heard that specifically, but i note that he has directed a 20% reduction,

joint staff, and the headquarters for the services, but i don't know if there's precise or specific initiative designs to reduce the number of senior executives personnel if that is what you are getting at. although, that's part and partial to the 20% reduction. >> clarification, former secretary will be overseeing the operation, the osd aspect or the services reductions as well? >> eel be engaged in the effort, i think, for approximately six to seven weeks, and i think he'll have a broad based view and role across the department? okay? one more question. >> george, just to reframe the question, if there was cruise missiles launched against the united states, 1 that an act of war? >> again, i'm not getting into labels, but let me be clear, we

take our right of self-defense seriously and naturally would defend ourselves. thank you, all, very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> we're back, the post of the report joins us from new york, talking top news including the senate foreign relations committee yesterday voting to advance a military plan to go forward in syria. what's your personal take on that? >> i favor it as long as it's tough enough and muscular enough to do some good and take out the air force, a sad's air force and beef up the rebels, i guess, moderate rebels, to the extent that those achievements are accomplished, i'll be whole heartedly in favor of it. i like the mccain's amendments yesterday. i think they move us in the right direction, and i think we're beginning to have a much tougher military operation than a lot of people believe, at least that's my perm view.

i'm not a foreign affairs expert, but it looks like this thing is moving now in a much tougher way than it was, let's say even a week ago. >> it appears the difficulty for the president to get some sort of approval from congress resides in the house, and with the decisions within the republican party in the house, you saw a little bit of that yesterday in the senate as well. what would you say to tea party republicans or those opposed to getting involved? >> guest: well, you know, it's going to be a tough vote. you're exactly right. i had the arms services chairman on the kudler report last night. he's undecided. he's the arms services chairman, so that gives you a sense of how tough it's going to be. my personal best argument is that the credibility of the united states is op the line, that we cannot stand by and allow rogue dictators to use

weapons of mass destruction. that's my personal view. i think that's a strong argument. it's an argument that even transcends the current president, mr. obama. it's really an argument about united states, about the institution of the presidency, and the willingness of the united states to try to keep a more civilized world. that's any take. these are hard things to do. i recognize that. i just don't want us to go in there with one hand tied behind our back, and i think that the mission has to be a much more muscular mission than the one initially described by the president as people a week ago. i thought secretary kerry did a great job last friday. unfortunately, they walked that back a little bit, and now it looks like it's walking forward. we will see. we've got the libertarian wing of the g.o.p., which i think you referred to, the rand pauls of the world who do not want involvement whatsoever. i don't agree with them.

i think the united states has to be involved, but it has to be done in a meaningful, effective, muscular way. >> host: is there an economic argument for getting involved? >> >> no, there's not a direct economic argument. this is about mustard gas, about dictatorships, about killing harmless civilians and their children. we outlawed mustard gas, what, how many years ago? 1925-1927, again after world war ii, if i'm not mistaken, so i don't think it's an economic issue. it could have economic repercussions. i think that's a distant issue right now. the issue of oil always comes up with middle east up rest, as you probably know. so far, the price of oil has been really in a narrow trading range, 107-108 a barrel, no explosion. a lot of oil experts have told

me coming on our show on cnbc that iraq of all places, iraq is the key, there's a pipeline from runs through the mediterranean, and then there's a second pipeline coming down in the area. if those pipelines were stopped or damaged, that could cause a big, big jump in oil prices. so far, that's not happened. i think the northern pipeline is about a million two or a million three barrels a day. the one down south is much more. they know if you cut them off with terrorists and so forth, yeah, you could be looking at worse case of 150-175 dollar oil. that would be a disaster for the u.s. and world economy. i think that's a long shot. i don't think anybody expects that to happen, so thus far, we have not seen any pal pble consequences. >> right, the financial times reported this morning with the headline" attack likely to lead

to oil release" and says a u.s. strike against the regime of bashar al-assad is not expected to have direct effect on oil supplies, but release of oil reserves would counter any act against countries or oil routes. >> guest: on that point, i have not seen the ft, but that sounds right to me. i know the saudis uppedded their production. they are close to 10 million barrels a day, and the saudis are in favor of what the united states is doing. in fact, as secretary kerry said, they offered to finance our operations. bear in mind, also, the united states itself, through the innovation of the fracking of oil and gas, we're producing more oil than we used to, and we have the strategic petroleum reserves that can be released in emergencies, so, you know, i'm

quite popeful that oil's not a factor in this. >> host: what about impacts on the stock market in general? how is the market reacting to what the president said last week, and now as this all up folds with congress coming back next week? >> there's a real hard question with so many factors in the stock market. you know, trading yesterday, just do this day by day because that's what happened. trading yesterday is very good. the dow's up almost a hundred points, and the price of oil fell, the price of gold, uncertainty barometer, inflation barometer, also fell. it looked like we were moving, the resolution in the senate, for example, was going to pass. moving in the direction of launching a military operation. on the other hand, before labor day on friday, i believe it was, stocks sold off, maybe a hundred points. i don't remember exactly. i think the market is trading on

many different variables here, what the federal reserve is going to do, the economic outlook, the profits outlook, and so forth, and, yes, the syria outlook. i just don't think the stock market is made its mind up yet. it's not quite figured this out. >> would it be good for defense companies and their sacrifices? >> defense companies had a good run, a very good run. we did a report on the stocks soaring, one of the manufacturers of the cruise missiles, and if i'm not mistaken, not an expert on these things, but the defense sector had a very good run. by the way, it had a good run longer than syria, but, yes, they are doing quite well. >> host: gene of ohio says, "doesn't the same u.s. military industrial complex corporation supply syria, egypt, iran, and russia with its weapons?" >> guest: well, i don't think

that's the case in syria. i don't think that's the case in syria. i know it's not the case in iran, for heaven's sakes. we have a boycott on iran, a stuff boycott on iran for quite sometime. egypt is a complicated question. yes, going back to the israeli-egyptian-palestine agreement of years ago, the u.s. provides foreign aid to both israel and to egypt. i think it's $1.5 billion a year. i could be wrong on that. again, i'm not an expert. the united states is, of course, very unhappy with the morsi regime, muslim brotherhood regime. the usa essentially in a de facto way backed the egyptian army and efforts to restore order and move to new elections of some kind. at the moment, we are continuing to meet our commitment, our financial commitments, to egypt,

but there is debate about that. there's going to be a date about that in this congress. >> michael, cambridge, massachusetts, democratic caller, you're up first for larry. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, have you or other news makers working for nbc considered how many lives could have been saved in the last 12 years if you used national platforms to inform people of 105 feet of free fall on 9/11 or the other overwhelming evidence proving that preplanted explosives were used to bring down building seven and the twin towers? >> guest: i can't speak for nbc news, cnbc news is a business and financial station. as far as we know, we have not gotten involvedded. that's not been a story we covered. i may be wrong on that, but as far as i know, we have not covered that story. whether our mothership, nbc news, talked about that in any way, i just can't tell you.

>> host: i should tell you and the viewers, there's an organized effort out there by a group who believe that the government was involved in what happened on 9/11 to call our show and ask our guests about that, so we addressed it. we'll move on. gloria in las vegas, republican caller, go ahead. >> caller: hi, how are you guys doing? >> host: morning. >> caller: that's good. i just wanted to ask you, why is it that you carry and all other political people carry influence so behind this when 9 # 3% of americans say no, soldiers say no, other people in the world, their actual citizens say no. nobody wants to go to syria, but everybody's backing syria. which is you guys, not americans. 93% said no. >> host: all right. >> guest: well, look at -- the -- if you refer -- i assume assumptions are made on the basis of polls. there's a lot of different polls

out there that have attacked or have looked at or measured a lot of different angles. i don't think it's fair to say that the american public wants us to look the other way on the syria weapons of mass destruction, the chemical weapons of mass destruction. i do agree that the public does not want an active military presence on the ground, so-called boots on the ground. i agree with that. all polls show that. on the other hand, as a lot of pollsters and other analysts have said, once you rephrase the question and you particularly make it clear that we're talking about using air force bombings and that there will be no involvement on the ground, then all the sudden the numbers begin to change, and, in fact, as many as 50%, something like 50/42 as i recall, are willing to go after syria as long as we do it on an air ship, naval, air force

bombing mission rather than with any army or infantry on the ground. i think the americans understand the horrific dangerouses involvedded in weapons of mass destruction. in this case, chemical war fair, and i do think they understand that assad, you know, just besides because he was losing the suburbing the damascus to go out and release the gas and kill, what, 1400 some odd people in a damascus suburb including 400 young kids. i mean, i think americans are both sympathetic and hard headed about these things that a rogue state like syria needs to be dealt with, but they don't want involved like the way we were involved in iraq or afghanistan, and i think polls are very mixed on this. like i say, i'm going to stick with the number, 50%, this is from the nbc/wall street journal

poll, as far as i can recall, shows people are willing to go along with these attacks. >> host: here's a tweet saying, "what do you think of attempts to legitimacy move the dod from sequestering as a requirement of congressional support for an attack?" >> guest: well, that's a great point, and i want to say i heard that last night from a house member with the oversight for that, and on two occasions, he said that it must be amounterred and the military is short of funds. the argument was the government is asking the military to do more while giving fewer resources. i'm a guy who wants a smaller government and believes we

should be reducing spending, but i agree also the way the sequester put together, half the numbers came from the pentagon, and we are asking the defense department to do more. mccain, others, and the caller have a good point and there may be modifications to sequestering, and whether that part of a time vote to provide authority, i don't know, but it could be a companion vote, as you know and others may know, we have a continuing resolution coming up. october 1st there needs ob a so-called cr for discretionary spending including defense, and, of course, the debt ceiling comes weeks later. i expect the defense budget to be re-examined, yes. >> host: all right. what do you think happens with the debt ceiling debate? >> guest: well, that's a great

question. if i had to guess this morning, i think the debt ceiling will be increased and go rather smoothly. they do not want to shut the government down or risk default on treasury bills and bonds. that's a tough vote, okay? i think that speaker boehner and others believe that if you raise the debt ceiling, then you have to cut the source of the debt, which is overspending. that's a point of view that i regimely agree with. now, they might want to do it in a compromise where there was entitlement reform involved. they do not want to do it with any tax increase that made that

very, very clear. we've already had, in a sense, a double whammy tax hike in the 2013. the top end of the bush tax cults were raised, and then the obama care tax related to hikes are kicking in, so that was damaging to the economy. i think, however, will get his wish with the so-called clean debt ceiling bill. those days are over. i think there's spending negotiations that could include positive entitlement reform which could be a good thing. it's tough. i think people have to be alert that this is a market issue also. you asked about financial markets. nobody in the financial markets wants the debt default for sure. it's a global event. it would be very damaging. everybody's worried that the time frame is so short.

your continuing resolution has to be done by october 1, and according to the treasury secretary, mr. jack lew, we may run out of borrowing capacity by mid-october, so that's only two weeks. we may be fighting a war with syria at the same time. it's going to be pretty complicated. >> host: so in the span of two months, house republicans the tea party libertarian wing will potentially vote to go to approve hill tear strikes in syria, raise the debt ceiling, and possibly do away with sequesteration for the pentagon. is that possible? >> guest: it's a hell of an agenda. i don't raise all, you know, i wouldn't characterize the g.o.p. as all tea party republicans, but i, myself, am quite sympathetic to their goals of limited constitutional government. i'm a reagan republican, as you

know, a free market capitalist, as you probably know, and i'm a jack jfk tax cutter as you also may know. i want to see a tough minded approach to the government and borrowing, and, look, the key point, and you can walk through the various crisis, and i appreciate the question, but the economy has to be allowedded or incentivized to grow. we're really only growing at 2%. that's not good. it's a slow recovery. i believe it's the slowest recovery in the post war period, okay? there's a lot of reasons for that. a lot of reasons for that. i similarbly do not want to increase the government's burden on the economy. i think measures like spending reform or tax reform -- tax

reform specifically, i can't emphasize it enough, how important and useful it would be to have corporate and business tax reform right now that lowers rates and gets rid of the loopholes. that's the sickle most progrowth incentive we can provide. let the money overseas be repatriated into the united states. it's like free money, over a trillion dollars, helps a lot for investment and job creation, and here's economic growth, the overriding issue right now. unemployment came down. that's great. you read, and i studied numbers, much of the employment is part time. that's not great. many is coming in low wage industries, you know, retailers, fast food, that's not great. retail earnings among nonsuperviser workers is slow. hours worked is coming down.

some is a direct function of the regulations in obamacare. some of this is just a direct function of general caution by businesses. many people have dropped out of the labor force. i mean, one measure of unemployment is close to 14%. you see the point? growth. job creation. investments. those are the key themes going forward. when we measure all fiscal issues raised, and you are right to raise them in the continuing resolution, the debt ceiling increase, sequesteration, we got to think about growth. how to get the american economy growing, frankly, at about 4% right now to make up for lost time. how to get almost 20 million people who were either not working or discouraged or under employed, how to get them back functioning and productive so this american economy can really lead the world again. those are the things that i think about when these policy questions come up.

>> host: twenty minutes left here, talking about top news in syria, debt ceiling, sequesteration, ect.. any limited strike is just stoking the fire when it comes to syria with 1100% retaliation dragging the u.s. in deeper. rick in tennessee, independent caller. what's your thoughts, rick? >> caller: i just wanted to speak on the international law that was roping in the norms and our credibility and stuff like that. you know, like as far as the international law and norms goes, we broke that ourselves are our torture and invading iraq without a reason and, you know, our credibility's shot anyways, you know, so, i mean, everybody's talking about, oh, the international norms, but i don't hear people crying when bush was torturing people, and went into iraq without a reason. i mean, we gave a reason, but it was a false one.

>> guest: i don't agree with anything the caller said. >> host: we'll move on. >> guest: i just add to that, this country, the united states, which is still the world's leader, has never used weapons of mass destruction. we have never used chemical weapons of mass destruction. we have never used mustard gas. never, ever. i think to lump the u.s. into that verbal mess that i just heard is just utter poppy cock. >> tweeting in, okay, we bombed syria, mr. assad then increases deployment of chemical warfare. how do we respond? boots on the ground? >> guest: i -- i agree that's a risk. i appreciate that question. i'm not a military expert. i can't answer that. it's really beyond my expertise. it's just, i agree with it. that's a risk. now, if you read today's paper, read the front page story of the

"wall street journal," the u.s. military, greatest in the world, is ramping up all its facilities, ramping up all facilities, both offensive facilities and defensive facilities. that's a good thing. i have great confidence in our military, but i -- i can't answer these what-ifs, and i don't think anybody can at this point. >> host: all right. javier in mississippi, democratic caller. >> caller: good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: my concern -- i'm calling in reference to the crisis in syria. now, the concern that i have is the level of partisanship that was shown yesterday during the capitol hill hearings. it looked like the republicans were using this as a platform and attempt to kind of gain along partisan lines. they continue to overlook the

fact that chemical weapons have been used, that the concern was raised by both democrats and some republicans about the future use of chemical weapons against our men and women abroad and the use by other dictators in the region or whatever situation you may have in the world. what -- and representative kissinger made it relevant showing the picture of the syria children and making mention of how many has been affected, the effects of the gas used. now, my question is, do you think the republicans are so consumed with gaining political ground here at home that they are completely overlooking the potential threat of ignoring or the ramifications, the negative ramifications of ignoring what's taken place? >> guest: well, look, that's unfair.

look, the leading backers of the president and effort to get congressional authorization to undertake the military action is john mccain, presidential candidate back in 2008, and, obviously, a leading republican. i can talk on senator lindsey graham as well. look at the vote. it was a bipartisan vote. it was a bipartisan vote. i think the level of bipartisanship so far that we've seen in the senate deliberations were moving over to the house now for the foreign relations committee to see what happens there, but, no, i think there's been a lot of bipartisanship. mccain in some sense has been the president's biggest backer while at the same time being critical of some of the tactics involved, and they are now making an arrangement, a

compromise so that in effect we are going to degrade assad and all his military capabilities, and we're going to upgrade the syria free army to the extent that we can vet the moderates and good guys rather than the jihadists to change the balance right now which is tipped towards assad. after the military actions are taken, and after the assistance is given on the ground to the rebels. i think the balance would be changed. my point is, no, i see this as bipartisan. i mean, i think you're going to have some democrats and some republicans who will oppose it. many democrats and many republicans are in favor of this. they are working out the language in both houses to come up with an effective resolution. i don't think this is a partisan

operation at pull. >> host: the president is meeting with other leaders today, and it's an economics summit, but as we all know, syria's on the agenda here, so what do you think that does? does that have any impact on trade between countries, ect.. >> guest: i prefer to look at it from an economic lens. i'm not a foreign policy expert. my field is the economy, and the g20 meeting is very, very important because the world economy is out of recession mostly, but it is not growing nearly to the capacities that it ought to grow. i mean, these are very important issues. the united states is growing at just 2%, and we have, you know, some good spots in the economy in the united states like car sales that were fabulous

yesterday, bravo, that's great. on the other hand, business investment has been slow, and employment has been mixed. it's a mix bag, okay. europe may just be coming out of the double dip recession. there's some evidence to suggest that up north in the united kingdom and germany, and the netherlands are just coming out of the double-dip recession. some of the manufacturing numbers and some look good. the other side of the world, china, which will be at the g20 meeting, they have been through a rough patch. many analysts believe china's stabilizing. maybe the growth rate can hold at 7%. i hope that is the case, and other areas among emerging nations, because of monetary

reasons and home grown mistakes, india right now is in very, very difficult conditions. iindia is, obviously, an important country. that are called emerging markets. i would say brazil has problems. there's currency problems, inflation problems, economic growth problems, and br sile, russia, india, and china, and russia outside the oil and gas sector where the prices are high and benefited russia, many people who know more about russia than i do say it's a very weak and poor economy, and the progress made is not being shared by the general russian pop. look. they need the theme of growth. how can we grow the world economy? you mentioned trade. i think you're dead right. trade is very important. more trade between countries, the better off, you have more

competition, better products, consumers benefit, businesses benefit, and exports will benefit, and jobs will benefit. trade is terrific. there's been talk about a trade arrangement. to me, i think many of the countries should be looking at lower marginal tax rate reform, okay? all across the world, i'd like to see flat tax reform, all right? lower the rates that create incentives, and at the same time, get rid of unnecessary loopholes, you know, cronyist loopholes that the government dulls out to business. i'm a flat tax reform guy whether it's the usa, europe, or asia or any of the others. europe, by the way, has lower corporate tax rates than the united states does. that's our bad. i think the u.s. has to be much more competitive on this. the president talked some about this. he's not spent a lot of time on it.

i know he's occupied with other things, but these are things that needs follow through from the treasury secretary and should be worked out in a bipartisan way with republicans who are prepared to embrace it. we need growth. growth is so important. we need markets, open markets, incentives, growth, and i think we need to acknowledge that after the financial meltdown of 2008, those countries that spent the most government money, the sort of traditional point of view, throw money at the problem, have not done nearly as well as those countries who are more prudent. i think that's very important. i think throwing money, we'll get the money from someplace. you're going to raise taxes? the imfments countries to raise taxes in order to dull out for x, y, and z. it didn't work.

my lifetime, we tried it, it did not work. we'll try it again. we'll let money remain in private hands. we need to have flat tax reform, both for individuals and corporations. we need free and open trade wherever possible. we need to have sound and steady monetary policy. >> host: okay. >> guest: some progress has been made in some areas, and other areas there's been no progress, and growth, the g20, in fact, the world economic cabinet, you know, it's like the world economic cabinet, and i think the g20 better be thinking about growth. syria, yes, i get that, but growth, growth, growth, growth, that's got to be -- we are so far behind our potential to grow right now. >> host: all right. a few more phone calls here. susan is in mississippi. republican caller. hi, susan. >> caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. i have two comments, and a question, and one comment is i

so appreciate your discussion about how we need growth and ways to get it. i do wish that more economists, as yourself, i guess you are retired into -- add a patriotic note to that that it's in american's best interest because america is an exceptional country founded on particular principles of freedom and liberty, and i want to see that integrated into the discussion. >> host: your question, fast, i'm out of time. >> caller: okay. the question is, what evidence have we seen that it was actually the syria government that used the gas or the nerve gas? how do we know for certain that it was syria? >> host: okay. >> guest: well, listen, again, i'm not an expert. all i'll say is this, i thought that secretary of state john

kerry gave one hell of a great speech last friday. okay? i know -- i'm on the reagan side of the republican party, john is a democrat, ran against george bush. i know john. i've interviewed him throughout the years, gave a hell of a great speech, and in that speech, he cited a number of very important sources. i think we're finding out now that elsewhere intelligence sources, a story in the paper today how german intelligence picked up phone calls between hezbollah and assad's people in syria about spreading this sarin gas and chemical warfare. i think the evidence absolutely is piling up now that this was sponsored by the assad regime. i think that's becoming very clear. i'm not your expert on that, but from what i gather in the prairps, it is absolutely crystal clear, and that is is

why i believe to keep our credibility, the united states as the world's leader, we must take some strong muscular action so this does not happen again, and we must be able to somehow disarm assad and his people from ever using chemical weapons again. maybe that's poly anish. maybe that's naive. that should be one of our goals. >> we got to get another economic story in here for you and get your take on who should be the next federal reserve chairman? >> guest: ha-ha, okay, well, the two leading candidates, yellen and summers, former national economic advisers to president obama. there's dark horses in there, timothy geithner could be a dark horse, former federal reserve vice chair donald cohen could be

a dark horse. those are the names. i'm not privy to the inside discussions. i think ms. yellen is a brilliant economist, and larry summers is a brilliant economist, and i will be honest and say that neither of them are my cup of tea. i say that, it's unpersonal, believe me, they are both very smart economists, much smarter and greater academic credentials. here's my problem. i would like going forward once the federal reserve gets back to normal, you know, poured all the money into the system and flooded markets and expanded the blafns sheet, complicated, but unconventional to say the least. as the fed moves to normalcy, i want rules, some clear, monetary rules that will maintain the

value of the dollar, that will take a market oriented position regarding interest rates, not a fed controlled interest rate, but a market oriented position regarding interest rates, and, of course, keep inflation rates low. to me, something like the tailor rule named after john taylor, former treasury official and distinguished professor at stanford university, down through the years, we've had gold and commodity rules regarding the stability of our money. , of our currency. there's smart economists that want something called a nominal gdp rule which is the combination of inflation and real gdp. whatever it is. i want predictability and some rules in monetary policy. we completely lost that. i think it's all ad hoc, tinkering, and fine tuning. it might have been necessary --

give ben bernanke credit for the original flush of liquidity back in 2008 and 2009. i give credit for that. qe, quantitative easing, since then, it's been a very limited value. regarding larry summers, janet, i don't see a lot of rule talk in their work, in the past. i may be wrong. i hope i'm wrong about that. i think we need rules. we need monetary rules. we need budget rules. we need tax rules. we need predictability and certainty. >> host: i'm going to squeeze in ronald, last call in florida, independent caller. ronald, can you make it quick? >> caller: yes, i can. with regard to the statement of american never using weapons of mass destruction, i just want to mention real quick white phos rows and completed uranium in iraq. i want to agent orange -- i want

to mention the atomic bombs dropped on hiroshima, those are weapons of mass destruction. another quick statement, all wars, if we look at them, are bank wars. the constitution, law of the land, says only congress should coin money. i don't know why we are putting up with the legal bogus over the money. that's all i have to say. >> host: okay. >> guest: i like the idea only congress coins money. not only coin money, but the preaccept, and regarding the assertionings made by the caller, i think they are irrelevant or wrong. >> host: he said all wars are bank wars. >> guest: yeah. >> host: do you have thoughts on that? >> guest: i don't know what it means? what's that mean "all wars are

bank wars," wars have to be financed, but banks don't cause wars. countries cause wars. bad decisions by policymakers cause wars. outlaws, rogue, and dictators cause wars. the united states has never, ever in its history been a cause of a war nor have we ever had any hedge monic goals around the world. we are there to keep the peace, and that is will be our mission for almost time and more mori yal. i don't know what a bank war is unless you say sometimes you float bonds inured to finance such and such. by the way, speaking of that, as i mentioned earlier, i believe it was saudi arabia that offered to finance the entire u.s. military operation in syria. i can't confirm that. i read it in a newspaper. i believe john kerry said that in a areaing before the house

foreign relations committee. it's interesting. i find that very positive. >> well more to come. larry, we appreciate your time this morning, sir. >> guest: thank you, appreciate it. >> we'll continue the discussion of u.s. military strikes on syria on the next "washington journal."

>> this week on "q&a," we discuss the newly released memoir titled "sideswipe: lessons learned curtesy of the hitman of capitol hill." ♪ c-span: in a chapter, you call pretty alice the most covert, manipulative, cunning, stealth, vicious, cold hearted instrument of evil that the bush administration had. what are you referring to? who is pretty alice? >> guest: i left out a couple things i guess. alice fisher. she's a very interesting person that received attention from senator levin in particular, and that went away as i explained in the book, but had really never

particularly tried cases and criticized for that. she was in the criminal division, i think, from 2001-2003, went to work, and she was basically, by the white house, directly placed here and there as they needed her. there's politics, but the bush-cheney reelection campaign, ect., not a political hack, i'm unkind, but i'll say "political hack," and was up for appointment when alberto gonzalez was attorney regime of the united states. ran afoul of senator levin because he said, a, she was close to the defense team, she had dealings with the defense team; b, she didn't have a lot of experience trying cases, and the most important where she was so stealth on this, bringing in the whole cheney torture guantanamo bay, gonzalez flair to this thing is she was approached when she was in the criminal division of the justice

department by the fbi, and this is, you know, available through wikipedia, ect., not something i created, and she was part of saying torture, just -- suppress that. she was part of the coverup. she was not just a person that was an attorney, but she was in the power position to be able to say no. torture, we'll let that be suppressed a bit. c-span: so you plea gar beginned, and what was the plea bargain to her? >> guest: she was head of the criminal division making announcements. i call her "pretty alice" for a personal reason as i said in the book. sitting there, there's press conferences, with my attorneys, she'd put on a red dress, dolled up, and smiling before the cameras, and i said, there's pretty alice. it was an inside joke, and i incorporated that in the chapter. ..

he was under scrutiny supposedly by the justice department which faded away and the other part to it was she had been part of this cover-up of torture. her appointment was basically in trouble as everybody knew from senator levin on the floor of the senate. at some point in time when john boehner in august called me and cut a deal with me the majority leader at that point in time and he said i had 24 hours to consider the deal or it would be

a relevant. in fact i would be able to get a job comparable to the salary i make in congress and he would raise defense money with this problem i had with the justice justice department if in fact have pulled out of the election. i need to say publicly and not running and they would then get a replacement senator patrick from ohio. c-span: what year would this have been? >> guest: this would be 2006 in august. iran for john weber -- rainer saying if if you don't accept that it's often we won't have to deal again. i called within 24 hours after soul-searching and i said fine i will take the deal. find me a job and help me raise the legal defense money. to fight this thing and put it behind me. i just wanted the primary and i was full steam ahead to run. boehner's call me the significance to me so i could find somebody to run in my place. after i announced i officially set my letter to the secretary

of state of ohio i couldn't get a janitor and john boehner's office to call me back. soon after that in september or so timeframe my lawyers had contact from the justice department and it was full steam ahead indyk men's, multiple indictments or a plea, take your pick. at that point in time i made a decision to take a plea. by september the 13th or so alice fisher salt her of prosecution on the abramoff case and that was me. all of a sudden the plea was let out and they had a process great alice fisher goes on to her appointment process. that is where you read the book i believe the dots connect to. c-span: here is the women you referred to as pretty alice. >> international and domestic tricks such as a trip to scotland with others valued at $160,000 complex of two new orleans valued at $7000 a trip to lake george valued at $3500

thousands of dollars of neal's, drinks, tickets to concerts, tickets to sporting events and use of a suite to conduct fund-raisers. in exchange for this stream of benefits as congressman ney admits he agreed to perform a series of official acts including agreeing to insert for separate and unrelated amendments to election reform legislation, statements into the congressional record and agreeing to support jack abramoff's clients in obtaining a multi-million dollar contract. and then he concealed these actions from the public and the house of representatives by filing inaccurate disclosure statements. c-span: anything she said through? >> guest: first of all met let me make it crystal clear i committed illegal acts and

unethical acts and improper acts. i took free food from jack abramoff grade i took free booze from jack abramoff so i don't deny any of that. i created this problem for myself and i admit that right up front however she mentions a lake george trip. i was not indicted or asked for her plea on that trip. that lake george trip i paid on that trip. the people that were on that trip know that. the people they downloaded some of my former staff know that too, that the trip the bulk of it was a personal trip. trip. four friends took it and i paid my way on that trip. as far as the thousands of dollars which the justice department estimates at jack abramoff's restaurant my staff and died that we partook in food and alcohol. that is is true and they estimated about $6000 i would disagree with that but over period of three years. that is accurate. what she fails to mention is when i would go to jack abramoff's restaurant signatures

i would have to shove the bush staffers aside. they were getting free drinks too which is fine. via my own problem on this but when she mentions kind of highlights it, the amendments. this is the one that really gets me. inserting amendments into the help america vote act. i inserted no amendment for jack abramoff into the help america vote act. the first official election bill dealing with the federal government in probably the nations history was an important bill. i did not insert jack's amendment. i was on the commerce committee with senator -- in any of those gentlemen will verify at no point in time did delay the amend on the table and say here's an amendment for jack abramoff. it simply didn't happen. did i agree to consider an amendment for jack abramoff for that they'll? yes, sir lilly. i'm probably one of the first members of congress in this

country's history in modern times to plead a felony for agreeing to consider an amendment to a bill. if they would go to the hill today in charge felonies on people that are considering amendments to a bill there would be barely anybody left on capitol hill. c-span: when did you know that you were doing something wrong? >> guest: there were were bright lights of a cross. for example when jack abramoff came into my office and he said i have an amendment for the help america vote act he said members of the senate weren't just a damned onboard. i as a member of the house said very clearly to jack abramoff that i would consider the amendment, which was -- consider this amendment and the other thing is that the senate wanted this amendment of course i needed that bill. if senators want that amendment and it doesn't ring my bell i will consider it. at that point in time though i didn't know what was in the amendment. we didn't have an actual amendment and that in itself is a problem.

to say yes i will consider that i think that's a problem in itself. the bright line is when we received and a member of my staff received an e-mail and said if you want to go to jack's restaurant and if you want to eat and drink all those staffers took responsibility and said none of us are going then it will be taken care of. whether by jack or my former staff or whatever lobbyists. that was a crossing of the bright line. the other was the scotland trip. as i noted in the book i came back and i said that was real and at that point in time i should've written a check to kasai new that did not smell right. they were bright lines are that cross. when did i know? there were definite signs probably within a six month period of meeting jack abramoff that i should have said it.

c-span: how long did you spend in congress? >> guest: i was part of the contract with america so i came in 1995. of course in january i resigned in september or november of 2006. c-span: how long did you spend in prison? >> guest: i was in prison for 17 months. i was behind the wall as we would say for eight years period and a the halfway house so i did 17 months federal time and i was sentenced to 30 months. c-span: when you think back on prison, and i know you do a hold chapter on prison in the halfway house what comes to mind first? >> guest: first is people who are warehoused. it's a warehouse. anybody who thinks its rehabilitation or trying to get people prepared to go back into society, it's a warehouse so the first thing that comes into my mind is the word warehouse.

c-span: what was it like getting there the first-day? who was with you and what were the first couple of days like? >> guest: i did something i didn't want to do. my friend ellen rattner who is now my current boss said he must come to d.c.. you have to sit with web hubbell. i remember web hubbell when he walked into our hearing room. my boss was the chairman of the services committee. we were looking at whitewater. we had web hubbell brought out of prison. i remember seeing him sitting in a suit at the house financial services committee. he came back to cumberland maryland prison and later on in my life i'm here in washington d.c. spending four hours with him. he prepared me for what was going to happen. he was the former assistant at tourney general former chief justice of the arkansas supreme court. this is what is going to happen. that was the preparation. when i went to prison i didn't take my family with me. i took two of my then current

staffer and one who had just quit and gone on to operations media firm. those two staffers went with me actually and they dropped me off at prison. i went and, i walked into the kiosk and i said i am bob ney here to report. the guard came up and he said i knew one of your campaign managers in ohio. i said okay. got down in there and the guard said here you have some hate mail. this was from california and massachusetts. you have to hate mail waiting on you. they gave me the mail and go through the most terrorizing part the stripped-down and then i got into prison down into the courtyard. the warden and i will don't use a language i do in the book but he said get away from him he can find his own way. i'm sitting there not knowing where to go and where to stay.

these closing, like to jama pants. one of the other prisoner said where's your escort who is supposed to take you around? some little guy in a suit yelled some foul language. he took me in the back way up the laundry room. i walked in and amanda sitting there and he said are you the congressman and? i said i used to be. he said are you a republican? i said well republicans put me inherit you know. i had to put in some humor in situations. i was the mayor of east clevelancleveland. welcome, i will get you some clothes. c-span: he was a prisoner. >> guest: he said where's your unit? where's your escort? i said some little guide yelled foul things in the guy ran away. at the end of the day i found out it was the warden who was standing behind me screaming let him find his own way to teach me a lesson. i walked towards the mainline 2d the next day in my mind is

racing. how am i going to when i get out of here get a job? i lost every time i ever owned. what about my children and? what about my family? what can i do? a prisoner turned to me and he said you've co-authored the sudafed love. you put in here. i realized i've got to get through this place. forget the house and forget the job. that had to get through this place. i sat down from that day changed my attitude so that was my first 24 hours. c-span: what prison was at? >> guest: morgantown federal risen. morton town between west virginia and cumberland west virginia. c-span: you were born in wheeling. >> guest: went to prison in morgantown west virginia and i choose to be buried in west virginia. c-span: you said you worked for ellen rat in her. this audience knows ellen

rattner from her appearances here. before we talk about her he could she is mentioned throughout your whole book i want to run a clip. this is her appearance. it has nothing to do with you but just to see what she looks like. >> i was a big marcher in the 60s right over here on the small. many marches and the last big one i participated in that the biggest one was in 1969, november of 1969 against the war. all those lbj and hey hey what do you say, all those. i have been at the dissenter my whole life. c-span: ellen rattner in my recollection could not be any farther way from you politically. >> guest: in the day in congress in those days it was the road that ellen rattner and i agreed upon, zero politically. today we might agree on some

things but today i call ellen lovingly the queen of -- and ellen is a pure true liberal in all the sense of being a liberal. we have been friends since i walked through the -- through the doors of congress. politically we are closer today but in the congressional not one but we would share. c-span: what did she do for you? >> guest: we not only became friends, we had this karmic relationship in the sense that she changed her birthday party her big 50th and as a result i didn't want to go to a scheduled event i had in new york city where i was to open nasdaq go into the tower and some kind of fund-raiser and close the stock exchange. i had our office set for september 11, 2001. ellen changed her birthday party. we need to make at september the fourth so one week earlier i am up in the tower overlooking the

crisp day in new york. i would have been in the towers that day had she not changed her birthday party so there was something about ellen brit rattner. she visited me in prison. she said you need to do radio. i said i don't want to publicly do anything. i just want a job. she said you need to get back in the saddle. what ellen did for me and i mention this as i dedicate the book to her, i work for her but that's a small part. ellen was my friend counselor psychiatrist tough love element. ellen rattner does not like you get by with anything. she will tell you right now in an unfiltered tone. ellen has been a wonderful friend. c-span: where do you live now? >> guest: ohio near columbus ohio. c-span: married twice and divorced twice.

current relationships? >> guest: no. c-span: kids? >> guest: two children. i have to mention my grandchild. c-span: go back to prison. the thought of public officials being in prison and the experience isn't rarely written about any put it all here on paper. what was it like that first couple of days so what kind of the cell were you in? you mention there was a toilet in the cell with you and did that serve the people? >> guest: i mentioned the shu for solitary confinement unit. i mention that because if you get in trouble that is where you are placed and it's not a good place to be. c-span: did you ever get in trouble? >> guest: i did get in trouble once because i want to do some laundry and one officer said what he doing? i said laundry and is hard to explain that the tv was turned on so you could get up and move

around. here they had not turned the tv soft. i said i'm sorry and i can't repeat on tv what he said to me. you had better be sorry and i know who you are congressman. i never got cited for it but otherwise i didn't get in any trouble. as far as what the prison was like it was traumatic at that time. i was married to my second wife and my children. you walk in there and everything you have ever known is behind you. i always told my friends i went from capitol hill hello mr. chairman, have a cup of coffee mr. chairman to know you were not getting your second round of old males some bag, move on. it's a different attitude in prison. when i went in i immediately mention people and i've got to be frank about this. i became friends more with the people who were in there for drug offenses than the white-collar crime people. i had white-collar crime friends

but i became friends with the people who did drug offenses. first of all they didn't whine as much they were more street savvy and people for me at least had a lot to share. they never would have had a chance to meet a member of congress. they would never and a lot of them told me that and a lot of african-americans and latinos said we would never have had an opportunity to meet you and we would love to ask you questions. i would answer questions in some of the classrooms and talk to them about jobs and resumes. i received a lot back. the first initial part is terrifying for anyone especially myself because i went from a lawmaker to a law breaker. some people imprisoned said you made the laws that put me in here. you did that to me. and then of course you try to say well you broke the law but yes i created the law. c-span: was at a country club in security? >> guest: ricky campbell and i

have permission to use his name. he has written two pages in the book. he was a very fascinating and very accurate. he was in longer than i was. barbara walters at one point in time did a club fed interview about swimming pools and how these are club feds. this was a minimum so it wasn't a camp. c-span: there are no bars, no cell. >> guest: they don't even lock you in the eye. their officers and you could get up to go to the restroom that there are no particular cells unless you get in trouble and then you go into the shu the holding area but as far as the club fed attitude it's prison. it's punishment. you will do this at a certain time and you will do that at a certain time. he will follow the rules.

if you have an emergency at home to bed. if someone dies you hear ney to the chapel and menu here that you know someone has died. a particular case from two friends oh dear mother died and by the way you owe us $22 on your account. now i know i did wrong and people in prison have done wrong but there's a certain human quality. if you want to psychologically rebuild someone who has committed a crime he would take these in a different way. prison is no joy ride. i i don't care for its county state or federal but the club fed years ago they did that whole club fed thing that gave the country club attitude to the place. yes there are maximum-security places. there are hard-core people that may be committed murder and such types of crimes but the minimums are no picnic where you are free to talk to your family and pick up the phone. c-span: who is charles mosier?

>> guest: charles mosher was my probation officer. he was federal. he was assigned to me in columbus ohio. had an interesting situation because whether intentionally or whatever he was in fact calling the prison and the prison the gentleman in the prison that oversaw that part of the probation when you leave would call me in and he would just scare me to death. what are you having this man call for? you think you or something congressman? i don't know charles mosier and i have never heard of the man. he went out of line because the gentleman in prison told me i'm going to call his boss. he called mr. mosier's boss but the call created in me a massive heartburn. as a show in the book they called to ask me who i was working for, how much money is going to make which i didn't know at the time. i was just happy to have a job in all these details you

normally are put through prior to getting out of prison. i was not released from prison on the duty that was to be be released tonight outlined in the book how fortunately by accident i was able to give private call to my attorney. c-span: how much of the book did you write yourself? >> guest: i've written the entire book myself except for ricky campbell's part in the prison and the former staffer of mine to put together i would call the chapter in the book. i had an editor sherry johnson, a wonderful woman who was partying my conscience to say this is what i think. also she would fluff up some of my writing style but the actual book itself as far as the thoughts in the book i had written them. i did have a ghostwriter they gave me the material but i wrote it myself and the editor would help me. c-span: where did you write it? >> guest: i wrote the book in india, it's called go what

indian ocean and the city above dharamsala. i was five minutes from the dalai lama's residence. i wrote it basically in 60 days. c-span: how did you write it, in longhand? >> guest: i had one of those i don't know what you call it you speak into this microphone. i did that within two days so i would sit down onward on the computer go to down by the ocean, would go to the tea shops and type it up and sent it to sherry and we would start after my outline i put together start chapter by chapter. i returned to newark ohio and did editing which would have been around may 31. i returned and did editing to january to where we pushed it up and produced it. the book, i said the press.

c-span: changing press, who is that? >> guest: that's ellen rattner. she decided she wanted to publish books and she has published four or five books and she would be able to do it herself. right now they have mario hemingway and the book is sherry johnson who is my editor who has published a book about her daughter who is allen's partner and i think they have two other people. c-span: there is another media person here besides ellen rattner. john bresnan. we don't hear a lot from john bridgeland. >> guest: bresnahan at that time he sent to my press secretary an e-mail. brian brought the e-mail land and clearly set in there some bad language and what he was going to do to mr. ney. i said to brian --

[inaudible] it was one of those e-mails you really don't want to have in the hands of other people. ryan gave me the e-mail. i have been told by some of abramoff's people that john brezhnev hand was getting information from jack abramoff and stories that this whole thing was going down because jack was quite secluded from the press as you can imagine after the washington press in "the new york times" and after they were going after him. brezhnev hand was doing stories but at that point in time i was doing point-blank by jack abramoff's people. i had used the word that he had duped me and tom delay was standing up for him and as a result he was helping to do some stories that would cause me heartburn. jock was feeding the items of what we did and where we went.

the second was the will whistleblower -- everybody says emily miller but the whistleblower was tom rogers. he then a native american involved in native american issues. the first one to uncover rightfully so the dealings with jack abramoff and the dealings with indian tribe. he said your people were worry and cash games and high state card games with reporters. members of congress but mostly staff and lobbyists. at that point in time i had played cards with the brezhnahan and paid him money. towards my last year that i was in trouble and i knew they had some card games going and i felt that was important to reveal in the process. i didn't think that should occur and i felt that brezhnahan in the way he would carry out stories on people that he

himself is a reporter was making terrible violations of of the rules in the ethics and even the ethics involved with staffers and lobbyists in these card games. the other thing is there was an arrangement by jack abramoff and i misquoted. brezhnev hand -- breznahan would become the editor and jack had this plan where he could control the media and stories that were written against other lobbyists he was dealing with. c-span: what kind of worry did you have. you accuse john breznahan of taking money. you say in the book that you let him win the card games. >> guest: i don't say that breznahan me that. i'm sitting there and i'm in trouble. i'm scrambling for my life and sitting there right or wrong in a card game with a reporter. i have a pretty good hand and i'm going to fold at hand. i'm going to lose 260 some dollars. that's my intention. i am not saying breznahan knew

that i did that but i did that. c-span: what has he done wrong than? >> guest: i don't think as a reporter you should be in cash games with members of congress or with lobbyists. c-span: i wrote down talk about the money pours in d.c.. who are they? >> guest: the system itself and i came to this conclusion but the system itself is dysfunctional. john mccain, mccain was going to clean up the system. we were going to have -- not have money and the system proliferated into a nuclear war of campaign funds that feingold created loopholes and that george soros to the the left -- to the right. i believe a lot of it is the race for money.

i am asked on radio shows about members of congress on both sides of the aisle. there are some people that we know that i've gotten in trouble for unethical activities but the system itself is doomed to corruption. anything jack abramoff and i did , i be sushi with jack abramoff and drank booze with jack abramoff and went to scotland. anything we did is codified in the united states law. if i'm a lobbyist and you are a congressman today i will give true examples in the book that have happened. but put these examples in the book sometimes with names submitted for a reason. if i want to i can take you to i'll you to i'll ask and we can hunt. we can have a three or 4000-dollar dinner better food than jack abramoff had. i can raise $75,000 take you or his staff for some of your family and fly you to las vegas and we have a 3000-dollar

dinner. it's all legal as long as we stand up at the reception and. i can have meals and still use use -- alice fisher and their announcement and that announcement and that's the other thing i didn't mention. congressman used -- for fund-raisers. no kidding. everybody listened to the program and everyone on the bill today, i was charged and i pled guilty. i did a lot of wrong things but using it for a fund-raiser? the entire congress would be in morgantown. it's a private talks and you go to them and he watched the game and you have a fund-raiser. nothing is changed on that. whatever i was charged for those are the types of things where they say he used a private lounge and it's done constantly. c-span: here is some video tom rogers mentioned. i want you to take a look and tell us what role he played.

>> they're not too many native americans in the country for a reason and then also what happened was i had people who trusted me who came to me and they came to me in the year 2002. i walked into the bar and i looked for somebody who -- [inaudible] and up walks this young gentleman the former chairman. tom rogers this is a earnest. tell me your story. as you can imagine i was not surprised. i said tom we are paying tens of millions of dollars to a lobbyist. jack abramoff? he said, yes. i don't know what we are getting for it and that was the constant narrative. c-span: how did he play such a significant role? >> guest: there are two movies. a wonderful documentary and i was in there. tom rogers and neal folds my

former chief of staff who has a book into the sun and then there's the movie by kevin spacey. just place me and kevin spacey plays jack abramoff. i like spacey. and that movie it shows emily miller who was scorned by scanlon. scanlon was the business partner of jack abramoff. c-span: but he worked for tom delay. >> guest: he was the connection. emily miller did not start all of this. that was a hollywood version and a misnomer in the media. tom rogers started all of this and i praise him for starting all of this. if i had anger in me i would say that guide did this to me. he didn't. he simply stood up on behalf of native americans. he found something was going on the didn't look right and didn't smell right. anybody can represent clients that when he gets a certain certain level and use members of congress to verify that this is

a great lobbyist. he ought to keep hiring him. the native americans unfortunately aren't given that much of return and it's not a healthy situation. tom rogers simply told the truth when he founded out and i give tom rogers credit. he's the man who got the ball rolling. c-span: foxconn. what's that story? >> guest: the federal government wanted to indict me for foxconn so bad that pretty alice was salivating to do this one. at the end of the day foxconn was one of the weird contracts that the actual providers were the one who decided and i will explain that. members of congress their time is extremely valuable and when they vote they go underground or above ground. when you go underground the cell phones literally would not work. chairman thomas phil thomas of california was chairman of the hausa administration committee. there was a contract to wire on the house side these devices

that would repeat signal so members of congress could use their cell phones was the bottom line. there were two companies ltcm foxconn. two members of congress are supporting each company. one member was supporting one company in their district but foxconn was in tel aviv. it had american connections to it but it was originally from tel aviv in israel. bill thomas did not want to get them between the two members of congress that he went out as chairman and i came in as chairman. when i got in there the living dead are sergeant at arms did such a wonderful job and i had jurisdiction over the capital police. bill said i don't like this and it's a bad security aspect. will you hold all up on this? jack abramoff represented foxconn. haley barbour who later became governor of mississippi and represented lgc. so of course those companies contacted us and as jack abramoff did an and haley

barbour did and they wanted to see if their clients could get the foxconn contract or the ltc contract. but i put it by the wayside at hill's request because i was serious about the security of the capital. later when we kept getting complaints from members of congress not from haley barbour or jack abramoff, we look back into it. i called the msa national security agency and they came to my office. we privately met and i said tell me the living dead was involved in this meeting. tell me what is the bottom-line of the security aspect? they went ahead and looked at this and we went into a skiff room which is in the capital and that's it private room. i won't reveal the information on the security to the capital but it's okay to do these if we do it in this way. the israeli-based company or the

lg sees her american company it doesn't matter which one. if we do it this way it's involved this way and that's all i can say about it. we made a decision to award the contract. what we did with the contract is it went through j. eagan in the administrative house. we have to providers do a survey. the providers were stripped verizon and at&t. there were five of them. they would sign off ltc or do you want foxconn? the majority said they wanted foxconn. there's one little twist in this though. at one point in time the word was used and this is how i met with foxconn. i had many jewish friends. in israel and israelis israeli will say i am jewish or she is jewish or he is jewish but when you referred and use that word in another way it's a derogatory

word to use it that way. c-span: let me read what you wrote. you say the just of the story involves neal walls not as a lobbyist but staff director of the hausa administration committee which is chaired. haley barbour the lobbyist for ltc called. he had an era of hey it's haley. need this one. translate that. what do you mean hey it's haley, need this one. >> guest: neal folds said it's haley and haley was the head of the republican national committee and when i came to congress he was the money guide. if you want to get reelected you needed haley barbour. for ltc who is against jack abramoff as a lobbyist for foxconn. c-span: you write neal told at one point haley said something to the effect he was fairly busy and have up call me on this sometime.

two members of congress normally pick up the phone and call a lobbyist? >> guest: you can. i have done it. i am busy, have up call me. c-span: however the real problems stem from something ltc's lapi said not only to us but also to the other symbol appeared he referred to the ox con as quote the jewish and could not understand why i would want to give contract to a foreign quote jewish company. you don't say this but are you talking about haley barbour saying that? you say and ltc lobbyists instead of haley barbour. he said that referring to it as a jewish company. >> guest: neal volz brought that into me. it transcended from there because i believe jack sees this

to get foxconn before me which the government said you met with foxcom and i will tell you why. it was because of the jewish issue. this got around. whether jack picked it up or whatever jack came into me personally and i remember what he said. this was about your reputation with the jewish community. you may be anti-jewish. i support the israelis and it's not about money. he brings foxcom officials in. we want to clear this up about half. aipac was supposedly mad and this was getting around town. at that point in time i said listen i don't know if you are going to get this contractor not but as far as not getting the contract because you are an israeli company that is absolutely absurd. jack said that's my point. knowing jack abramoff and neal volz jack was a chameleon of type.

possibly jack abramoff found out about this and seized foxcom before me. that's possible. i'm not saying it's not so the government when they said to her attorneys he sat with foxcom. i sat with foxcom because of that issue that the slur became part of my political problem. c-span: who got the contract? >> guest: foxcom got it. c-span: by the way what kind of rights to to do you have when it comes to congress? can you go on the house floor? >> guest: i have full privilege of the house. i can tell -- take people on the house floor. speaker pelosi i can call her office. in fact the only problem i had was boehner's office. the speaker's attorney called me and wanted to know about was bringing former constituents on the floor. otherwise i had privileges of the house. c-span: have you been over there?

>> guest: i was over there this morning. c-span: how do they treat you? >> guest: i have been treated well. the first time i got out of prison in 2008 i was with ellen rattner and she wanted to go to dinner. i'm not going to go to the dining room. she said you need to go. i said i can't. i haven't been back in the capital. i had a lot of friends in the capital but it's not good for me i didn't feel. she said just walk over and as i walked in i i have my former members card and my picture when i was a member. i will never forget this. the police officer is standing there and he said welcome back mr. chairman. your card is not needed here. a couple of lady started crying and i saw some members who said hello. i was like wow better than i deserved. it was an ah-ha moment for me and i went back to the capital. c-span: do you get a pension?

>> guest: i took a pension early because all my money was gone so i took early pension. c-span: how much did your legal fees cost you? >> guest: $518,000. part of it is paid in part of it is not paid. c-span: how did you raise the money? >> guest: i would raise legal defense money but i drained my campaign account which caused me to go before john boehner to ask them for money. karl rove's number one guy was sitting there in the room which was was to meet very unusual but i was trying to get money to get through the election to win it. i ran out of money basically. i won the primary and was headed to a zero balance after the election. c-span: here is jack abramoff talking about you. >> one of the reasons bob went to prison, had had a different issue that was not related to mine. he took $50,000 in casino checks from iowa iranian businessman apparently who wanted the

government to keep permission to sell planes to iran. now that act in the casino in london and bob played by the way. a probably he would have been convicted but in terms of the stuff with me nobody else was indicted because a lot of the congressional action is protected under the speech and debate clause. right to you writing your book and before you answer that i'm skeptical today as to whether jack abramoff has learned his lesson or if he is back after the mighty dollar rather than redemption. have you seen him since? >> guest: he sent me something on facebook sort of a god bless you. this is interesting. this is the first time i have seen it. if i read my quote i'm not sure. jack abramoff does want to be frank about what happened.

c-span: so what happened? >> guest: in jacks as well there was the problem of the chips i was not indicted for the chips. the government cannot indict me in second was not an iranian businessman. he was a syrian businessman. the other thing is the government had this story that i asked colin powell to sell airplane parts. anyone is free to call colin powell. the conversation simply never happened. i never asked colin powell if he would help sell airplane parts to iran. when jack says well they got bob because of casino chips compacted have a problem of declaring chips and i declared some and did not declare others and i put that in the book but the government didn't indict me on that. what jake bremer -- abramoff is saying is if the government, if god hadn't had that problem with the casino, there was nothing

bob and i did that would have convicted me for. that is not accurate. i had a stream of favors for jack abramoff. they took free food from jack abramoff it should've been reported and i took free alcohol from jack abramoff and pled guilty to falsification of the congressional document. jack doesn't like the answer to the very question he has created on "60 minutes" jack abramoff said i had 100 in my pocket. jack abramoff spent a million dollars on 100 members and he spent 30,000 on me but was a difference between those members and myself? i'm not saying i can point the finger and say this membership be indicted or not but there they were the people that took trips and other people that signed letters for jack abramoff and inserted items in the congressional record for jack abramoff. i argued jack abramoff is not correct that he and i didn't do anything.

i argue it was he and i and london didn't help me but it was he and i. i argue the rest of it is only not to jack abramoff and they write in my book i think once i went away congress and the bad guys from prison and they didn't have to go after anybody else but when john mccain had his senate hearing and drug jack abramoff their ralph reed's former head of the christian coalition coalition was involved in a secret plot received money, maybe millions of dollars to act like he wanted to close the casino and jack was to open it. that was tick would drive which i said jack is a good guy and i was culpable in that thing with the native americans. he didn't drive ralph reid there. the only name he mentioned was me. i did wrong things and i committed criminal acts but when jack abramoff said -- if it

wasn't for london. c-span: in the book he said in the end when you're talking about the press and abramoff. you said earlier you corrected he didn't want to buy the roll call on capitol hill. he wanted to buy the hill. but he did want to buy that any talk about john brezhnev hand and then you said jack knew that one side went away and his rants like delay and others would be spared delays legal woes are in the state of texas and had nothing to do with abramoff. the justice department totally drafted. should tom delay have been in guided by the federal government? >> i can't answer that because i'm not alberto gonzález and i'm not jack abramoff but i will tell you this. if i was indicted and if i pled a kasai went on the trip to scotland. tom went to the mariano islands. the question is that a legal trip in itself? i don't know.

jack did -- paid for the baby shower. tom's former chief of staff filtered through millions of dollars for jack abramoff through some type of foundation or some such thing. are those indictable? i don't know. i'm not alberto gonzalez but my point is if a jury in texas in the states in fact convicted tom delay what happened here with justice department? if these are peanut things than i guess we were all indictable or we all weren't. c-span: let me show picture the standing on the st. andrews golf course i believe it is with the group and look at this picture. first of all you are how heavy there? >> guest: when i went to prison i was 234 pounds. i was probably a good 212 there.

c-span: what are you there -- now? >> guest: i came back a 173. c-span: who is the fellow in the back? >> guest: david said pavey and who is still in prison a year. ralph reid, jack abramoff myself and some guy that jack hired. c-span: you suggest in your book that ralph reid was on the airplane and it was innate passenger private jet. who flew you over there? >> guest: jack abramoff. c-span: what year was this? >> guest: 2002. c-span: i have a picture of a whole group of you standing in front of the planes. has this been cleaned up in this town? can a member get -- remember this picture? i think that is jack abramoff son. >> guest: probably few do a fund-raiser -- a fund-raiser but this part may be cleaned up most

likely. c-span: how available warplanes to you when you were chairman of the administration? >> guest: one point i want to make about the trip. the trip was underreported. the trip did not turn out as we thought it would. we didn't meet with people we were supposed to. tom feeney from florida got in trouble over that same trip. he wrote a check and did not go to prison. i can't compare myself to other members or why did the government not let mike or i write a check. i don't know all that. as far as this trip, we didn't know particularly it's still fuzzy who paid for it. the point i make in the book is the chairman of the house of administration i could call the state department and say fire the jets onto good scotland and i want to meet with so-and-so and by the way i want to stay three days and i'm going to golf.

i can do that. my one argument about this trip that i would make is this. at no point in time and jack abramoff knows this and the justice department knew it. at no point in time did i say jack i want to go to scotland. take you to scotland. at no point in time. at no point in time did i say why don't you have the indian tribes pay for? when i say jack abramoff dupes me i'm referring to one thing. when jack abramoff told the indian tribes ney wants to take a trip and you guys pay for it i didn't have to do that. i could call the state department scotland and golf for three straight days in a row. i wasn't even the coffers of that part of that i had issues with jack abramoff over. i didn't need that to happen so that is why use the part about duping. c-span: i want to be careful about how i say this but when i read your book and you go into so much more detail than i could cover in this, i thought maybe a

shower might be useful and not thinking about you but thinking about this town. how much of this this goes on to this day? more than anything that we haven't talked about are all the staff abusing their privileges behind the same. >> guest: jack abramoff and i would agree on one thing if he were sitting here today. to clean this town up. everything we did was on steroids now. everything jack and i did, everything is on steroids. the power games in the money games. everybody on the hill knows what i say is true. you have to raise half a million. if you want to be a chairman you have to play that game to be part of the system. the leaders are making incredible amounts of money and control a lot of the powers. the big pharmaceutical companies etc., go to some of the leaders. at the end of the day on the shiny bright capitol hill are some of the most wonderful people in this country.

democrat and republican but also this is corrupt. a lot of the people some bad people mainly go to argue but the system is broken. the barrel is corrupt. c-span: let me ask a different way. if you were teaching a high school or college course would you teach and academics view of how it still comes along or would he have them read this? >> guest: i would have them read this and tell them the truth of the reality of how some bills become a law. it's a mixture. if you take away the money game and again i would agree with abramoff in the things i've heard him say. if you want to serve in congress you become a lobbyist. med. if you're a staffer you don't become a lobbyist. this is not the feeding ground for the lobby circuit. take the money out of the system don't buy chairmanships of committees. don't have that nuclear campaign arms race of raising money. look, today people take their staffers federally paid take

them to the democrat ward room i call it and the republican war room across from the capital and they raise money on federal time. is it illegal? no. is it right? no. c-span: the democratic and republican national committee -- >> guest: i can safely say somebody's doing it. there are a lot of changes that today's speaker boehner and minority leader pelosi could join hands today and within 24 hours have such a dynamic change on that hill and allow these good people that are at their democrats and to function. c-span: we don't have any time left that bloom was last time you had a drink? >> guest: september 13, 2006. c-span: aa everyday? >> guest: four times a week. c-span: i assume when you're for or two old till you you were talking about bill wilson.

>> guest: i'm talking about my friend in ohio. c-span: i thought you were talking about the founder of aa. >> guest: the traditions of aa , we don't talk about aa. c-span: the name of the book is "sideswiped" lessons learned courtesy of the hit men of capitol hill. our guest has been bob ney former congressman from ohio. thank you. ..